Discovering the Tragic Hero - Coursework Example

Discovering the Tragic Hero Outline Introduction Thesis ment: A shift occurred in the definition of the tragic hero from the ancient world to the present which can be discovered through a comparison of the title character in “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles and the character of Willy Loman from Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” that serves to retain the effects of the tragic. Character traits of the tragic hero Aristotle’s classification Noble spirit Excessive pride Fatal flaw Process of the tragic hero Aristotle’s definition Error in thought that leads to downfall Acknowledgement of responsibility for error Enlightenment as a result of the fall Oedipus the King as tragic hero Character traits Process Willy Loman as tragic hero Character traits Process Conclusion Comparison of characters as revealed Demonstration that tragic hero is as effective as common man today as noble man of yesterday The concept of the tragic hero was first brought forward in ancient Greek mythology through the writings of the philosopher Aristotle as he described the important individual characteristics the tragic hero must possess. Although Aristotle outlines three requisite character traits that the tragic hero should possess, he qualifies the definition of the tragic hero with a set of events that must also take place before the hero can be considered truly tragic. Once this process is understood, it is easy to see how the sudden downfall of a mighty man, such as Oedipus the King from the play by Sophocles for example, would be dramatic and shocking to a public dominated by strict social classes. The same events occurring to a common citizen, such as an ancient Willy Loman from Arthur Miller’s play, would simply be expected and thus would be no more shocking or impacting than fruit going bad. However, more modern audiences accustomed to greater equality in social structure tend to identify more closely with the ‘low man’ who is more like them and have come to expect spectacular downfalls of their social leaders. Thus, a shift occurred in the definition of the tragic hero from the ancient world to the present which can be discovered through a comparison of the title character in “Oedipus the King” by Sophocles and the character of Willy Loman from Arthur Miller’s “Death of a Salesman” that serves to retain the effects of the tragic. The tragic hero had been present in a number of plays and dramas of the ancient Greeks before Aristotle, but Aristotle codified, so to speak, the requirements for a character to be considered a tragic hero. This idea was generally applied to characters with potential for tremendous greatness, such as kings and princes or those who had some sort of noble claim. However, each of these characters are considered destined to fail as a result of some tragic flaw inherent in their nature, often associated in some way with their greatest strength and therefore an aspect of their character that the individual is inordinately proud to exercise (Aristotle, 1998). According to Zarro (2001), “the tragic effect will be stronger if the hero is ‘better than we are’, in that he is of higher than ordinary moral worth. Such a man is shown as suffering a change in fortune from happiness to misery because of a mistaken act, to which he is led by his hamartia (his ‘effort of judgment’) or, as it is often literally translated, his tragic flaw.” Despite this, in more recent centuries, this definition has come to be applied to those of lesser stature as well, characters that the ‘common man’ can identify with, often including those who only aspire to be respected within their own household. What has become more important than noble status in the tragic hero cycle are the three-fold process through which the tragic hero progresses. According to Vest (2002), heroism today refers more to the actions of the character, as someone who embodies all of our ideals regarding what is good and noble in human nature, rather than the birth or earned social status of the character him or herself. The process of the tragic hero must follow a basic pattern of the character committing some act in the excess of their pride that inevitably leads to their downfall (Aristotle, 1998). This is the first stage. The second stage occurs when the character admits that the problems they’ve been experiencing are the result of their own actions and pride. The third stage enables the tragic hero to experience a moment of enlightenment and redemption, but often not a return to the high status of their former life (Aristotle, 1998). Tracing through this process, it can be seen that the status of nobility is not actually an important element in the equation as anyone can experience a downfall as the result of their own mistakes, admit where they were wrong and experience enlightenment as a result. However, the element of shock does seem to be an important contributing element – the tragic hero must not have necessarily expected the outcome to have occurred, and neither can the audience (Zarro, 2001). In the ancient world, people still generally held a degree of faith in their nobility, tending to attribute their social leaders with adhering to a higher standard of human behavior. Thus, it was more shocking to have one of these leaders tumble from his nobility, particularly as a result of his own actions (Bryant, 1996). In more modern times, a greater educated and greater informed public has a cynical tendency to expect their leaders to fall, typically as a result of personal characteristics. This introduced a shift in the social standing of the hero from the top of the heap to the bottom of the pile without significantly altering the ‘tragic’ in tragic hero. This shift in social status of the tragic hero can be found in a comparison between King Oedipus as an example of the ancient tragic hero and Willy Loman as an example of the new. Oedipus has often been held up as the supreme example of the tragic hero, having all three required character traits and passing through all three required actions of Aristotle’s definition. For example, when the people of Thebes come to him seeking relief from the plague, Oedipus chastises them for their lack of faith in his abilities, as if he really were a god. Referring to himself as the “world-renowned king” underscores his prideful streak early in the play. Oedipus is confident that he has outwitted fate because he and Jocasta have several children together and the kingdom prospers. Thus his noble spirit is that he is a noble king capable of making wise decisions, yet this confidence in himself also proves to be his fatal flaw. In making the promise to discover and punish to the full extent of social customs the murderer of the former king despite warnings not to, Oedipus demonstrates this pride in making the decision that will lead to his downfall: “Well, I will start afresh and once again / Make dark things clear” (139-140). Oedipus realizes his mistake late in the play beginning with Creon’s criticism of him: “You are obstinate— / obviously unhappy to concede, / and when you lose your temper, you go too far. / But men like that find it most difficult / to tolerate themselves” (814-819). As he compares events in his own life with those of Jocasta’s, Oedipus is shocked into realizing the truth of himself. “A curse / I laid upon myself. With these hands of mine, / these killer’s hands, I now contaminate / the dead man’s bed. Am I not depraved? / Am I not utterly abhorrent? / Now I must fly into exile and there, / a fugitive, never see my people, / never set foot in my native land again” (983-990). Realizing it was through his own prideful confidence in his judgment and hasty action to fulfill that judgment that he is now publicly exposed as the killer of a king and parent, the incestuous lover of his mother and father of his own brothers and sisters, Oedipus receives enlightenment that there is no escaping one’s destiny and takes definitive action to ensure he can never tempt fate again. To compare the tragic heroes of the ancients with those of the modern, it is possible to turn to Miller’s example of Willy Loman, who bears many of the same character traits and participates in the same direction of movement as Oedipus without the noble stature. “Willy Loman is clearly not the usual tragic hero; he is lower middle class and none too clever. The world he inhabits is that of amoral, capitalistic big business rather than one with any clear moral value” (Abbotson, 2000, p. 25). Willy is noble in that he continuously struggles to try to build some sort of legacy for his children through the established avenues of the common man, namely through the faithful service to his company and the development of long-term business relationships. His fatal flaw is in believing that this system works and that without having achieved success in this area, a man is not worthy of his family’s affection. This is made clear in his constant habit of exaggerating his importance in other areas of the world to his boys. “Loman has a faulty vision of what makes a person successful, which makes him flawed, but regardless of the opposition and the ultimate cost to himself, he refuses to give up that vision, which makes him, in Miller’s eyes, a tragic hero” (Abbotson, 2000, p. 25). Because of this belief in the system, Willy is unable to understand that his family truly does love him regardless of what the rest of the world thinks of him, thus causing his downfall in his own eyes. His realization of the falsity of this thinking only comes to him as he removes the barrier of financial success for his family, in the moments before his car crashes. “It is only when Willy understands that Biff loves him, even though both are failures, that he achieves a degree of insight. It is too late to change the course of events, but he goes to his death more nearly at peace than at any time in the play” (Brockett, 1969). As a result, Willy’s realization and enlightenment both occur at nearly the same moment, but they do occur, providing hope and encouragement to modern audiences that are completely able to place themselves in something similar to Willy’s situation. In looking at these two plays, it can be determined that both characters contain necessary elements of the tragic hero’s character. Both Oedipus and Willy have a noble nature to them. Oedipus is himself a king, married to a queen and a competent, respected leader of his people. Willy has envisioned himself in much the same way. Although this does not seem to be true in his reality, he remains a noble character in that he is honestly attempting to understand how to provide his family with the quintessential American Dream that is the end goal of every breadwinner. Excessive pride in their own understandings is also present in both characters, contributing both to their achievements in life as well as to their downfalls. Oedipus is overconfident in his own ability to make decisions, refusing to listen to the advice of others which eventually leads to his exposure as the lowest form of human being. Willy is overconfident in his understanding of how the world works, believing one must achieve financial or business success before one can be deserving of the love and attention of one’s family, which is the end goal of life. This belief prevents Willy from understanding that his family already does love him. For both characters, their fatal flaw is revealed as an unswerving dedication to their flawed thinking even after they have discovered it is flawed. More importantly, both characters undergo the necessary process of the tragic hero. Oedipus makes the decision to aggressively pursue the murderer of the old king only to discover it was himself. Willy aggressively pursues his understanding of the American Dream even though his family attempts to dissuade him from his impressions and convince him of the truth only to discover that they were right and he was wrong. Both characters are finally forced to admit their own complicity in their downfalls and experience enlightenment as a result. Oedipus discovers he cannot escape fate while Willy discovers that love is not something that can be purchased with the sweat of his brow. Thus, both characters are easily classified as tragic heroes despite the vast difference in their social status. Given the different social structures in which these plays were produced, each character can be seen to be most impacting upon their own audiences because of their shocking quality and their accessibility to the audience. Works Cited Abbotson, Susan C. Student Companion to Arthur Miller. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000. “Aristotle.” Critica Links. The University of Hawaii, (1998). March 5, 2009 Brockett, Oscar G. “An Introduction to Death of a Salesman.” The Theatre: An Introduction. 2nd Ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1969. Bryant, Joseph M. Moral Codes and Social Structure in Ancient Greece: A Sociology of Greek Ethnics from Homer to the Epicureans and Stoics. New York: State University of New York Press, 1996. Miller, Arthur. Death of a Salesman. New York: Viking Press, 1949. Sophocles. Antigone, Oedipus the King, Electra. Oxford World’s Classics. Ed. Edith Hall. Oxford University Press, 1998. Vest, Rob. “Shakespearean Tragedy in Othello: The Moor of Venice.” Late Plays of Shakespeare. (2002). March 5, 2009 Zarro, Josephine. “More Terms Defined: Aristotelian Definition of Tragedy.” Gallery of Tragic Heroes in Literature and Life. (July 19, 2001). Teach the Teachers. Read More